Allowed

Asha Builders Ltd. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Apr 2014CWP/11177/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged orders demanding payment of stamp duty on a Mortgage Deed executed without possession. The court held that the petitioner, setting up a business including amusement parks and restaurants, qualifies as an 'Industrial Concern' and is entitled to exemption via a 1973 government notification. The petition was allowed, setting aside the impugned orders.

What did the court decide?

The petition was allowed; the order dated 27.4.2011 by the Commissioner set aside; the amount deposited by the petitioner to be returned by the respondents.

Asha Builders Ltd. Vs State of Punjab & Ors. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

C.W.P. No. 11177 of 2011

¶2

[ 1 ]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

¶4

C.W.P. No. 11177 of 2011 Date of Decision: April 4,2014

¶5

Asha Builders Ltd. ................................ Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Punjab and others .................. Respondents

¶8

Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri

¶9

1.To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶10

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶11

Present: Mr. Rajiv Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner/s.

¶12

Mr. Rupam Aggarwal, DAG, Punjab.

¶13

RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral)

¶14

Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 27.4.2011 passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division.

¶15

A Mortgage Deed No.1198 dated 26.6.2001 was got registered by Asha Builders Ltd.-petitioner after securing a loan of `165 lacs from Punjab Financial Corporation for the purpose of setting up unit consisting of an air condition farm palace/Banquet Halls, air conditioned restaurant, pub mini amusement park and Punjab Dhaba. The Mortgage Deed

¶16

Kaur Rupinder 2014.04.12 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶17

C.W.P. No. 11177 of 2011 [ 2 ]

¶18

without possession was executed in favour of PFC without payment of stamp duty of 3.30 lacs (2% of Rs.165 lacs). A notice was issued on 30.5.2003. Reference was made by the Collector under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act. Vide order dated 17.8.2010 the Collector proceeded on the notification and directed the petitioner to deposit 3.30 lacs as stamp duty along with 12% interest from the date of registration and 3% penal interest. On appeal, this order has been affirmed by the Commissioner vide order dated 27.4.2011 (Annexure P3).

¶19

The short question for consideration before this Court is – Whether the notification dated 7.7.1973 issued by the Punjab Government (Annexure P1) was applicable in the case of the petitioner for exemption of stamp duty?

¶20

It is not being disputed by the parties that in the present case the Mortgage Deed No. No.1198 dated 26.6.2001 was got registered after securing a loan from Punjab Financial Corporation for the purpose of setting up unit consisting of an air conditioned farm/palace/Banquet Halls, air conditioned restaurant, pub, mini amusement park and Punjab Dhaba. As per the definition of “Industrial Concern” in Section 2(c) of the State Financial Corporation Act,1951 it includes the hotel industry; setting up or development of tourism related facilities including amusement parks, convention centres, restaurants, travel

¶21

Kaur Rupinder 2014.04.12 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶22

C.W.P. No. 11177 of 2011 [ 3 ]

¶23

and transport (including those at airports), tourist service agencies and guidance and counselling services to the tourists; providing commercial complex facilities and community centres including conference halls.

¶24

The Concern of the petitioner squarely falls within the definition of “Industrial Concern” as it includes Community Centres, Amusement Park and Restaurant. Therefore, the benefit of the notification dated 7.7.1973 (Annexure P1) should have been extended to the petitioner. The notification (Annexure P1) clearly states that the stamp duty leviable on Mortgages without possession executed “by the Industrial Concern in favour of PFC is not to be levied/it is to be removed.

¶25

The Mortgage Deed has been rightly registered without payment of the stamp duty and in view of the definition of the “Industrial Concern” this writ petition is allowed. The order dated 27.4.2011 passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division is set aside. The amount deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the order dated July 15,2011 shall be returned by the respondents.

¶26

( RITU BAHRI ) JUDGE

¶27

4.4.2014 rupi

¶28

Kaur Rupinder 2014.04.12 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Asha Builders Ltd. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asha Builders Ltd. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Rubi Oil Mill Vs P.S.E.B., etc.

Haryana Cooperative Joint Farming Societ Vs Union of India and Ors.

Rajinder Sharma Vs P.S.E.B

Sarla Devi Vs State of Hy.

Om Parkash Gupta and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Devinder Singh and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.